alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
# C_2020378EN.01001501.xml

| 9.11.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 378/15 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

9.11.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 378/15

---

Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 9 September 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Conseil d'État — Belgium) — JP v Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides

(Case C-651/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Asylum policy - Common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection - Directive 2013/32/EU - Article 46 - Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Article 47 - Right to an effective remedy - Action brought against a subsequent application for international protection as being inadmissible - Time limit for bringing proceedings - Rules governing notification)

(2020/C 378/18)

Language of the case: French

Referring court

Conseil d'État

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: JP

Defendant: Commissaire général aux réfugiés et aux apatrides

Operative part of the judgment

Article 46 of Directive 2013/32/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 June 2013 on common procedures for granting and withdrawing international protection, read in the light of Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, must be interpreted as not precluding legislation of a Member State which provides that proceedings challenging a decision declaring a subsequent application for international protection to be inadmissible are subject to a limitation period of 10 days, including public holidays, as from the date of service of such decision, even where, when the applicant concerned has not specified an address for service in that Member State, that service is made at the head office of the national authority responsible for the examination of those applications, provided that (i) those applicants are informed that, where they have not specified an address for service for the purposes of notification of the decision concerning their application, they will be deemed to have specified an address for service for those purposes at the head office of that national authority; (ii) the conditions for access of those applicants to that head office do not render receipt by those applicants of the decisions concerning them excessively difficult, (iii) genuine access to the procedural safeguards granted to applicants for international protection by EU law is ensured within such a period, and (iv) the principle of equivalence is respected. It is for the referring court to determine whether the national legislation at issue in the main proceedings meets those requirements.

---

(1)  OJ C 372, 4.11.2019.

---
# C_2021044EN.01000902.xml

| 8.2.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 44/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.2.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 44/9

---

Order of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 10 October 2020 (request for a preliminary ruling from the Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky — Slovakia) — Finančné riaditeľstvo Slovenskej republiky v Weindel Logistik Service SR spol. s r.o.

(Case C-621/19) (1)

(Reference for a preliminary ruling - Article 99 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court - Common system of value added tax (VAT) - Directive 2006/112/EC - Article 168(e) - Input tax deduction - Use of the goods solely for the purposes of the taxable person’s taxable transactions - Existence of a direct link between the imported goods and the output transaction)

(2021/C 44/13)

Language of the case: Slovakian

Referring court

Najvyšší súd Slovenskej republiky

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Finančné riaditeľstvo Slovenskej republiky

Defendant: Weindel Logistik Service SR spol. s r.o.

Operative part of the order

Article 168(e) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax must be interpreted as precluding the grant of a right to deduct value added tax (VAT) to an importer where he does not dispose of the goods as an owner and where the upstream import costs are non-existent or are not incorporated in the price of particular output transactions or in the price of the goods and services supplied by the taxable person in the course of his economic activities.

---

(1)  OJ C 363, 28.10.2019.

---
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

PR 21-0005

IN RE THE MOTION OF CHRISTOPHER

T. WRIGHT FOR ADMISSION TO THE

BAR OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

FILED

MAR 3 0 2021

Bowen Greenwood

Clerk of Supreme Court

Oillmönta"

Christopher T. Wright has filed a motion for admission to the Bar of the State of

Montana pursuant to Rule V of the Rules for Admission, Admission on Motion. The Bar

Admissions Administrator of the State Bar of Montana has informed the Court that the

Commission on Character and Fitness has certified that Wright has provided the necessary

documentation and has satisfied the requirements prerequisite to admission on motion

under Rule V. Therefore,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that upon payment of any application fees and

completion of any other processing requirements as set forth by the Bar Admissions

Administrator, Christopher T. Wright may be sworn in to the practice of law in the State

of Montana. Arrangements for swearing in may be made by contacting the office of the

Clerk of the Montana Supreme Court.

The Clerk is directed to provide copies of this order to Petitioner and to the State

Bar of Montana.

DATED this 3 b day of March, 2021.

03/30/2021

Case Number: PR 21-0005
/4

Justices
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 241 (Monday, December 18, 2023)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 87339]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-27659]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 73

[Docket No. FAA-2023-2042; Airspace Docket No. 23-ASO-25]
RIN 2120-AA66


Renaming of Restricted Areas R-2103A and R-2103B; Fort Rucker, AL

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This action corrects a typographic error in the final rule 
published in the Federal Register on November 24, 2023, making an 
administrative change to rename restricted areas R-2103A and R-2103B, 
Fort Rucker, AL, and updating the using agency description to reflect 
the change.

DATES: Effective date 0901 UTC, January 25, 2024.

ADDRESSES: A copy of this final rule, and all background material may 
be viewed online at www.regulations.gov using the FAA Docket number. 
Electronic retrieval help and guidelines are available on the website. 
It is available 24 hours each day, 365 days each year.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brian Vidis, Rules and Regulations 
Group, Office of Policy, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20591; telephone: (202) 267-
8783.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

History

    The FAA published a final rule in the Federal Register (88 FR 
82257; November 24, 2023), renaming restricted areas R-2103A and R-
2103B, Fort Rucker, AL, and updating the using agency description to 
reflect the change. Subsequent to publication, the FAA identified that 
the final rule was published with the incorrect docket number. This 
action corrects this error by replacing the incorrect docket number, 
FAA-2023-0242, with the correct one, FAA-2023-2042.

Correction to Final Rule

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, Renaming of 
Restricted Areas R-2103A and R-2103B; Fort Rucker, AL, published in the 
Federal Register on November 24, 2023 (88 FR 82257), FR Doc. 2023-
25850, on page 82257, in the third column, is corrected by removing, 
``Docket No. FAA-2023-0242'' and adding in its place, ``Docket No. FAA-
2023-2042''.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 12, 2023.
Frank Lias,
Manager, Rules and Regulations Group.
[FR Doc. 2023-27659 Filed 12-15-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
# C_2019103EN.01004101.xml

| 18.3.2019 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 103/41 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.3.2019

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 103/41

---

Judgment of the General Court of 6 February 2019 — Marry Me Group v EUIPO (marry me)

(Case T-333/18) (1)

((EU trade mark - Application for EU figurative mark marry me - Absolute ground for refusal - Descriptive character - Article 7(1)(c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001))

(2019/C 103/55)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Applicant: Marry Me Group AG (Zug, Switzerland) (represented by: G. Theado, lawyer)

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: J. Schäfer and D. Walicka, acting as Agents)

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the Fifth Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 5 March 2018 (Case R 807/2017-5) concerning an application for registration of the figurative sign marry me as an EU trade mark.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Marry Me Group AG to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Marry Me Group AG to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 259, 23.7.2018.

---
#### Tillie Green et al., Respondents, *v.*Morris Bramson et al., Doing Business as Hotel Columbia, Appellants.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

February 5, 1959.

*Irvi/ng Jaffe, Normand Bard*and *Louis Mitler,*for appellants.

*Guadagno $ Shugerman (Arthur N. Seif*and *Eric A. Seif*of counsel), for respondents.

*Per Curiam.*

The only evidence relating to the jury’s misconduct was adduced at a hearing held approximately two weeks after the verdict was returned and was given by the jurors themselves.

*151While the conduct of the offending juror cannot be justified it does not appear that the item which he brought to the jury room contributed to a prejudicial attitude on the part of the jurors.

Moreover a juror may not impeach his own verdict and under all the circumstances here the hearing conducted by the court below was violative of that well-established principle.

The order setting aside the verdict of the jury may not be permitted to stand and is hereby reversed.

The order should be reversed, with costs, and the verdict of the jury is reinstated.

Concur — Hecht, J. P., Aurelio and Tilzer, JJ.

Order reversed, etc.
NO. 12-09-00120-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

IN RE: DAVID GEORGE BAUGH, §

RELATOR

§ ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

§

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM

In this original proceeding, David George Baugh seeks a writ of habeas corpus and a

declaratory judgment alleging that he is being unlawfully detained by the sheriff of Cherokee

County, Texas. We dismiss the petition. 

The Texas Government Code provides as follows:

Concurrently with the supreme court, the court of appeals of a court of appeals district in which a

person is restrained in his liberty, or a justice of the court of appeals, may issue a writ of habeas

corpus when it appears that the restraint of liberty is by virtue of an order, process, or commitment

issued by a court or judge because of the violation of an order, judgment, or decree previously made,

rendered, or entered by the court or judge in a civil case. Pending the hearing of an application for

a writ of habeas corpus, the court of appeals or a justice of the court of appeals may admit to bail a

person to whom the writ of habeas corpus may be granted.

TEX. GOV’T CODE ANN. § 22.221(d) (Vernon 2004). Thus, the original jurisdiction of courts of

appeals to issue a writ of habeas corpus is limited to those cases in which a person's liberty is

restrained because the person has violated an order, judgment, or decree entered in a civil case. Id.

Consequently, courts of appeals do not have original habeas corpus jurisdiction in criminal law

matters. Dodson v. State, 988 S.W.2d 833, 835 (Tex. App.–San Antonio 1999, no pet.); Ex parte

Hawkins, 885 S.W.2d 586, 588 (Tex. App.–El Paso 1994, no pet.). In such matters, their
2

jurisdiction is appellate only. Dodson, 988 S.W.2d at 835. Accordingly, we dismiss Baugh’s habeas

petition and request for declaratory judgment for want of jurisdiction.

Opinion delivered April 30, 2009.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

(DO NOT PUBLISH)
1The Honorable James M. Moody, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Arkansas, sitting by designation.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 98-2844

___________

Larry D. Pint, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Northern

* District of Iowa

Solvay America, Inc., and *

Solvay Animal Health, Inc., * [UNPUBLISHED]

 *

Appellee. * 

___________

Submitted: April 22, 1999 

Filed: May 28, 1999

___________

Before BEAM, HANSEN, Circuit Judges, and MOODY, District Judge.1

___________

PER CURIAM.

Larry Pint appeals the District Court's grant of a motion to dismiss and a grant

of a motion for summary judgment in favor of Solvay America, Inc., and Solvay Animal

Health, Inc., on Pint's claims brought pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act,

42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq., the Iowa Civil Rights Act, Iowa Code § 216.1 et seq., and

Iowa state law.
2The Honorable Michael J. Melloy, United States Distrtict Judge for the

Northern District of Iowa and The Honorable John A. Jarvey, United States Magistrate

Judge for the Northern Distrtict of Iowa, to whom the motion for summary judgment

was submitted by consent of the parties under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

-2-

The District Court correctly analyzed the applicable legal principles as they

applied to the facts of this case.2 Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed pursuant to

Eighth Circuit Rule 47B.

AFFIRMED.

A true copy.

ATTEST:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
```

[Congressional Record Volume 158, Number 114 (Monday, July 30, 2012)]
[Senate]
[Page S5689]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                   ORDERS FOR TUESDAY, JULY 31, 2012

  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that when 
the Senate completes its business today, it adjourn until 10 a.m. on 
Tuesday, July 31; that following the prayer and pledge, the Journal of 
proceedings be approved to date, the morning hour be deemed expired, 
and the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the 
day; that the majority leader be recognized and the time until 12:30 
p.m. be equally divided and controlled between the two leaders or their 
designees, with the majority controlling the first hour and the 
Republicans controlling the second hour; and that the Senate recess 
from 12:30 p.m. until 2:15 p.m. to allow for the weekly caucus 
meetings.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<CIK> 0000855876
<NAME> CITIZENS BANCSHARES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                          25,467
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                             364
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                 1,900
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                    240,375
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          65,230
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            65,454
<LOANS>                                        595,247
<ALLOWANCE>                                     11,350
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 947,930
<DEPOSITS>                                     709,592
<SHORT-TERM>                                   123,457
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             10,351
<LONG-TERM>                                     14,818
<COMMON>                                        16,514
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      73,198
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 947,930
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 57,166
<INTEREST-INVEST>                               16,999
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   391
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                74,556
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              26,810
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              32,023
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           42,533
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                    1,614
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                (22)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 23,728
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 22,017
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      22,017
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    14,706
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.49
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.49
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    4.95
<LOANS-NON>                                      1,158
<LOANS-PAST>                                       674
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                   418
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                  2,060
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                10,895
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    2,444
<RECOVERIES>                                     1,285
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                               11,350
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             2,544
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          8,806
        

</TABLE>
# C_2021182EN.01000601.xml

| 10.5.2021 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 182/6 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.5.2021

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 182/6

---

Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 11 March 2021 — European Commission v Hungary

(Case C-400/19) (1)

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations - Common organisation of the markets in agricultural products - Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 - Article 34 TFEU - Selling prices of agri-food products - Minimal profit margins to be applied in the retail trade of those products)

(2021/C 182/07)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Parties

Applicant: European Commission (represented by: A. Sipos, X. Lewis and E. Manhaeve, acting as Agents)

Defendant: Hungary (represented initially by M.Z. Fehér, G. Koós and Zs. Wagner, and subsequently by M.Z. Fehér and G. Koós, acting as Agents)

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Orders that, by adopting Paragraph 3(2)(u) of the mezőgazdasági és élelmiszeripari termékek vonatkozásában a beszállítókkal szemben alkalmazott tisztességtelen forgalmazói magatartás tilalmáról szóló 2009. évi XCV. törvény (Law No XCV of 2009 prohibiting unfair trading practices applied against suppliers of agricultural and food products) and by thus restricting the way in which the selling prices of agricultural and food products are formed, Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Orders that, by adopting Paragraph 3(2)(u) of the mezőgazdasági és élelmiszeripari termékek vonatkozásában a beszállítókkal szemben alkalmazott tisztességtelen forgalmazói magatartás tilalmáról szóló 2009. évi XCV. törvény (Law No XCV of 2009 prohibiting unfair trading practices applied against suppliers of agricultural and food products) and by thus restricting the way in which the selling prices of agricultural and food products are formed, Hungary has failed to fulfil its obligations under Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007;

| 2. | Orders Hungary to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Hungary to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by the European Commission

---

(1)  OJ C 255, 29.7.2019.

---
20510

#### State v. Fox

Affirmed
U.S. Deportment 

of Transportation 

Federal Aviation 

Administration 

JAN 0 72tmJ 

Mr. Paul Applewhite 

309 S Cloverdale St Unit D-24 

Seattle, W A 981 08 

Dear Mr. Applewhite: 

800 Independence Ave. SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Thank you for your letter dated October 29, 2013, requesting approval for a different 

marking procedure for the Applewhite Aero Invenio unmanned aircraft. Title 14 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations 45.22(d), Exhibition, antique, and other aircraft: Special rules, 

permits persons to apply to the Administrator for a different marking procedure if it is 

impossible to mark an aircraft per§§ 45.21 and 45.23 through 45.33. 

Your request for alternative marking has been reviewed. You are hereby authorized to 

identify your Invenio unmanned aircraft with the following marking. Place the word 

EXPERIMENTAL" on the forward left and right sides of the fuselage in one inch lettering. 

This marking procedure applies to all Applewhite Aero Invenio unmanned aircraft of the 

same configuration for which future certification may be requested. 

The following must be kept with the airworthiness certificate: 

• A copy of your original request letter; and 

• A copy ofthis response letter. 

If you have any questions, please contact the Airworthiness Certification Branch, AIR-230, 

at (202) 385-6346. 

Sincerely, 

16~~ f()/ 

James D. Seipel 

Manager, Production and Airworthiness Division 
Applewhite Aero 

UnrnAr.nOO S~Lt:mo >.tllll Tra•rmg Piv;Kie 206.762.5285 

PO I?.QX 46955 Fax: 877.160.4966 

Seattle. WA 98146 Web: www.epplewnt..eaero.com 

Date: Octobcr29. 2013 

Mr. James Seipel 

950 L'Enfant Pla2a S. W _ 5'" Floor- Stc 500 

Washington DC 200~ 

Dear Mr. Seipel. 

Applewhite Aero is in the procc.ss of applying for a spe.:;ialairworthiness certificate iu the 

e)cperimental category under Order 8130.34. Due to small size of our lnvenio UA, we cannot 

write F..XPERIMENTAL in a way that complies with 4S.23(b). 

We request an altemati"-e marking pnx;edun:: EXPERII\.1EN 1 AL would be written on each side 

of the UA fuselage's front section in I inch lettering. t\ pk1ure is attachro, showing the proposed 

location.